The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level • Hacker News Board

Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

#571

Post by krsw » Fri, Jul 03, 2026, 6:22 PM UTC

u1hcw9nx wrote: post #180

vannevar wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is consistent with the observation that the top 10% have captured a disproportionate share of GDP growth over the past few decades. https://equitablegrowth.org/new-data-reveal-how-u-s-economic... "The past three economic expansions have largely benefitted the top 10 percent. In each, the top decile received between 47 percent and 59 percent of all income growth in the expansion."

Also note: Labor share has declined similarly across OECD countries for several decades. Automation, robots, software etc. they are all capital share.

Also weaker worker rights, gig-economy, continued outsourcing, H1B exploitation to undercut wages (aka 'take 60k for this 110k job or go home idk'), just straight up bad wage growth in general (min wage pretty much stagnant since the 90's), stock market rewarding RiFs, massively decreased market regulation, more take breaks for the ultra-wealthy, cutting SNAP benefits, bonuses transitioning to RSUs- taking 3-5 years you vest...

Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

#572

Post by SideQuark » Sat, Jul 04, 2026, 5:20 PM UTC

stymaar wrote: post #559

SideQuark wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s plenty of papers showing exactly this. What do you think has driven productivity? People simply bring smarter? The fact is capital expenditure from company or investors has bought machinery, compute, pipelines, transport, and massive investment to make those workers more productive for decades. As such, the returns to capital as a share has increased. Those places able to deploy capital to add productivity wi…

> What do you think has driven productivity? “Productivity” is a terrible metric for such a discussion, it's not what it sounds, it's merely “real” GDP/worked hours. > The fact is capital expenditure from company or investors has bought machinery, compute, pipelines, transport, and massive investment to make those workers more productive for decades. As such, the returns to capital as a share has increased. Those pla…

It's interesting you cut out the "There’s plenty of papers showing exactly this." then pretended the rest is simply ignorant belief.

> the businesses that won during the 2000-24 period (the so-called “tech” companies) were companies for which capex were well below average.

First, it's odd that when discussing the point about total US worker productivity and capital expenditures, you somehow think a sector consisting of less than 1% of workers is evidence. And even on that claim you are incorrect.

Here's the datasets for that period capex by industry [1]. You are demonstrably wrong by a large margin. I expect you to have some better sourced or more convincing data, otherwise it seems you're operating on belief, not evidence.

If you want to try again, try looking at all workers, not cherry picked examples.

> That's not “well known”, you're just saying the gospel

Here's google scholar on the literature around this [2]. Go ahead and tell me again how this is not well known? Pretty much every paper and piece of empirical evidence on this points to the same reasons.

[1] https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/dataarch...

[2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,15&q=us+pr...

Re: The labor share of income in the US is at its lowest post-war level

#573

Post by 93po » Tue, Jul 07, 2026, 6:46 PM UTC

triceratops wrote: post #569

93po wrote: post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you dump toxic waste into a river to make money, but volunteer 30-40 hours a week? Does it make the dumping less unethical? The point isn't about doing labor, it's about not profiting off of other's labor or rent-seeking.

Rent-seeking is different from being a landlord. And I mean that in a "dictionary definition" way - they are literally different concepts. And we all "profit off of others' labor" when we buy things. I was responding to the person who said "anything you can do thats useful to society counts as labor". According to them only retired people are allowed to live off investment income. But what if the thing someone labors…

Rent-seeking can be explained in a few different ways, but one of them is "extracting value without creating much new value" which is exactly what a lot of landlords do. Buy a house, rent it for more than the mortgage, and do as little work as possible in the process. This the renting experience for (I'd guess) 95% of people.

If someone buys housing primarily because they have access to capital and credit that renters do not, then charges more than the carrying cost while minimizing maintenance and labor, they are extracting value from ownership of a scarce necessity. The value they capture comes less from producing something new and more from controlling access to housing. This is rent-seeking.

It doesn't mean all landlords are rent seeking, but it's not accurate to say the two have nothing to do two each other, and that it isn't the net effect or intention in almost all cases.

"And we all "profit off of others' labor" when we buy things."

How exactly do I generate a profit when I buy a hairbrush? That's not how profit works. That hairbrush would presumably cost the same to me whether the profits of the company that made it to the owner or the laborer. Between me and the retailer there is a fair exchange of value. Between the laborer and factory owner who made the hairbrush there isn't when he sells the hairbrush at a profit and that profit doesn't return to the laborer. He is extracting the full value of that labor for himself while having done no work in making that hairbrush.

Also let's say buying a hairbrush was unethical - that's why the adage goes that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism. But we don't deserve to die or suffer because we're forced into it.

"According to them only retired people are allowed to live off investment income."

That's not what they're saying. They said "no one should have anything other than labor as their main income until they retire" - which could have probably been better worded as "the income you make in your life should come from your labor, not the labor of others".